Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
Don't you know that your good works are for naught and that if you are not among the elect, you are damned?
;-o)
Great work, Salvation!
Christ was pleased, I'm certain!
F
Bumpo and Bingo!
**You know....I cannot think of one Protestant organization that would have me.**
So what church do you attend?
And he provides no citations for anything that he proclaims. He just says it as if by saying it it should then just become true.
Another reason somebody might say something without citation would be because he thought it wasn't controversial. Mere absence of citation seems equivocal to me. As is silence.
No details are ever provided by those who should have said something. Luke was there in Rome circa 60 AD and he says nothing about Peter being there, nor does Josephus, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus --- all those who should have said something as they wrote from Rome and about Rome and to Romans.Are you going to make me get out of my chair, find my crutches and then root around until I find my Tacitus, if I even have it still? I don't recall his saying very much at all about Christianity. So his failing to mention the whereabouts of Peter doesn't strike me, with my imperfect memory, as indicative of anything at all. For it to be meaningful I'd need for him to say a lot about Christianity in Rome so that it would be clear that he cared, knew a lot, and then didn't know that Peter was there.
I just don't see that anyone who wasn't a Christian would have cared a whole lot.
Where is there a record of Peter's decrees from that famous sacerdotal chair --- there are none. Weren't his words important enough to record?
And here you seem to suggest a very different idea of the early Church from the idea I have. I don't tink there was a job description of Boss Apostle, complete with a list of expectations and provision for year-end review. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as we believe, these guys are making it up as they go along.
supposed magnificent Bishopric
I'm sorry, that just seems to me to be tendentious, if not flat out dishonest. Who attributes magnificence in any normal use of the word to Peter's ministry?
There was no evidence of a triple tiara or a papal sedan chair. I stipulate that eagerly (untroubled by my complete ignorance of what there is and isn't evidence for) but that to me says nothing either way about whether Peter was in Rome and what he might have done there. It seems to me that the argument would first have to show that we expect evidence before its absence is shown to be remarkable.
**You do know that a whole lot of what gets fought over is vocabulary and specialized definition seen from how it looks from outside the specialized meaning group. **
Absolutely. And all we can do is continue to shine the light on the truth.
I'm fairly certain it is in a Jack Chick comic book. They realized that they couldn't actually be critical of Peter, so they simply made up a different Peter to focus their bigotry on.
Their theory has a very critical flaw. If it was true, then why wouldn't the Church have simply "covered it up" by removing any reference of Simon Magus?
Here Jesus is telling this woman that he is only sent to His lost sheep. She is a gentile. Why did he not just heal her daughter right away if he ministered to jews and gentiles?
Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Jesus calls the gentiles dogs twice here
Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
Mar 7:27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.
Eph 2:11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
We gentiles were without God
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
After the cross, we are now made nigh. We are no longer strangers.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
**And then, now I know this will astonish you, I, myself, have been, I know this will upset you ... known to err.**
Don't we all fall at one time. I know I have made mistakes here on FR, and thank goodness, other good Catholics have corrected me in a very loving way.
You are correct......it could be one long washing. But I have always witnessed our priests and deacons doing the baptizing pouring the water during the recitation of the entire baptismal phrase.
Thanks for catching my little mistake.
OK, I remember. The phrase for Sorrows is Delarosa or something like that.
Another oops!
God gives us children t o help us remember.
What makes it so important to you that Peter resided in Rome.
They are speaking of Rome as inclusive -- the entire Roman Empire, aren't they?
Thanks, mark. Now you know my Latin is lacking -- only took it in high school. LOL!
(Last time I will ever try to translate some Latin on FR! LOL!)
Is there a website somewhere that would do my simple mind in this area, a favor, by translating the Latin to English?
LOL! Once again we (Catholics) use the Scripture and you guys (Protestants) use the church fathers -- falsely interpreted.
Why does it matter which happened first? God is the one who is in control, not Peter. He set it in motion by giving Peter the vision.
Wow! I am humbled. I am among real scholars here. Thank you.
**The resolutely uninformed and persistent nature of the attacks lends credence to my hunch that our interlocutors are victims of the father of lies.**
Amen! I have wondered also. Aren't we warned against false prophets and preachers?? Such as the author of this article?
I am shocked at how few (if any!) times the RM has had to step in and reprimand someone. EVERYONE has been so pleasant (all things considered - there's been a bit of snappiness) which is surprising given the nastiness of the original article.
I've learned an awful lot about the history of certain Catholic beliefs as well as the beliefs of many Protestant posters.
My priest calls us brothers and sisters. He's not my brother, nor am I related to anyone in the parish. Perhaps I should correct him next time?
I know you and a bunch of others have written me and I have not replied. I have not even had time to read all the posts to me yet :-).....my schedule is 7/24 in that I am called upon to minister whenever I am needed. I will try to get to reply to at least some over next few days. Did not want you all to think I was ignoring you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.